Crowley and Lowery [2000]

Crowley and Lowery [2000] is a key part of the Hockey Team. The data versions used by Crowley were never archived and have now been mis-placed. However, Crowley sent me smoothed and transformed versions of the data in Oct. 2004. The diagram below is a simple color-coded plot of the Crowley data set – illustrating (1) similarity of MWP and 20th century peaks based on the proxy record (without splicing the instrumental record); (2) the hockey stick-ness of the contribution of 4 stereotyped proxies: Briffa’s Polar Urals series, Thompson’s Dunde series and 2 bristlecone pine series. To my knowledge, no one has specifically examined the possibility that a few stereotyped and questionable proxies are the "active ingredients" in all the multiproxy studies. I’ve got some work in hand on this and will post up some comments. MORE

4 Comments

Mann and Jones (2003) temperature records look a lot like the solar activity record (see http://www.john-daly.com/ for some nice overlapping plots) except perhaps around 1050 or so. Perhaps overlapping Crowley’s original record and your correction of Crowley’s record and the solar activity record would reveal something new.

If you look at the Mann and Jones (2003) temperature and the record of solar activity (see http://www.john-daly.com/mj03.gif), you will see they are very similar to one another, particularly in the latter years. The biggest difference seems to be around 1050 when activity is low and the temperature is supposedly high. It was around that time though that the Nile froze over, so paerhaps the temperature reconstructions are not so good.

If you look at the Mann and Jones (2003) temperature and the record of solar activity (see http://www.john-daly.com/mj03.gif), you will see they are very similar to one another, particularly in the latter years. The biggest difference seems to be around 1050 when activity is low and the temperature is supposedly high. It was around that time though that the Nile froze over, so paerhaps the temperature reconstructions are not so good.

I guess you can make the point that the reconstructions count on a few samples for shape. But if you really want to make a general point of cherry-pikcing the inputs, you are going to have to break down and understand the overall literature (what studies there are to pick from).